On May 27, 2002, the mayor of Toronto gave a speech about urban growth. “Toronto is a great city, and we want it to stay that way,” he said. “Where we go from here depends on all of us.” Then he introduced a document known as the Official Plan. It contained a plan for controlling Toronto’s growth for the next 30 years.

Planning for Future Growth The Official Plan took three years to complete. The effort was led by Toronto’s city council, which wanted to hear what residents had to say about the plan. Town hall meetings were held around Toronto to give people an opportunity to express their thoughts. An invitation in French, Polish, Chinese, Portuguese, and English was published for people’s suggestions and ideas. The council also received advice from land use experts from Toronto and elsewhere in the province. The result was a plan that allows some growth in some places.

The Official Plan allows growth to continue in 25 percent of the city. Most areas targeted for growth are in the urban core and include the old downtown and the waterfront area on Lake Ontario. Growth is also allowed in four “centers” in outlying parts of the city. Public transportation is to be expanded in order to link these growth areas together.

In the remaining 75 percent of the city, development is to be limited. This area includes the city’s residential neighborhoods. It also includes waterways, parks, and open space.

The Official Plan also lays out what kind of growth Toronto should encourage. New developments are to be mainly infill and mixed-use projects. Such projects will bring new homes, shops, and businesses into the urban core.

Concerns About Infill Supporters of the Official Plan believe that it offers a sensible approach to controlling sprawl.But while infill sounds like a good idea, not everyone supports it. Developers raise concerns about its hidden costs, such as the extra time and money needed to clean up abandoned sites. This work must be done before new development can begin. And if a site is polluted with toxic chemicals, these costs can rise very quickly.

People living in neighborhoods marked for growth raise a different concern about infill. They worry that building new developments on empty lots will make the urban core more crowded.

In 1996, Atlanta, Georgia, hosted the summer Olympic Games. People came from around the world to watch the events. They filled hotels and restaurants and cheered the athletes in new stadiums and arenas. Few visitors, however, traveled outside the city. Only those who did could see why Atlanta has been called “the fastest-spreading human settlement in history.”

Rapid Growth Leads to Traffic Jams During the 1990s, the Atlanta metropolitan area boomed.Atlanta led the nation in new jobs, homes, and highways.It also led the nation in urban sprawl.Hundreds of acres of forest were cleared each week to make room for new residents. Without controls on development, housing tracts pushed deep into the rural fringe, destroying habitats for plants and animals.

The people who bought these new homes relied on cars to get around. Atlanta’s commuters drove more miles every day than drivers anywhere else in the world. If you added up all the miles that Atlanta commuters drove in just one day, they would stretch all the way to the sun.There were traffic jams night and day.

Air Pollution Threatens Highway Funds All those vehicles traveling along Atlanta’s roads also led to air pollution. The air became so polluted that it caused asthma attacks and made people suffering from other respiratory ailments much worse.

Atlanta’s dirty air also violated the Clean Air Act. This is a federal, or national, law that sets limits on air pollution. In 1998, the federal government ordered Atlanta to meet the law’s clean air standards. If it did not, Atlanta would lose federal highway funds, which the federal government gives to cities to improve roads.

Atlanta had to make a decision. One option was to do nothing to control growth, but this would mean giving up federal highway funds. Another was to continue growing but to create a regional transportation system. Such a system could cut pollution by getting people out of their cars. A third option was to limit sprawl in some areas while requiring mixed-use development in others. Over time, this option could also reduce car travel and air pollution.